He never should have let himself get drawn into this argument with an obnoxious radio host, but 1) I find it actually reassuring that he can get angry; 2) he certainly is capable of arguing and defending himself.

UPDATE:

E-mail:

Dear Mr. Lowry,
…
As a native Iowan, a conservative, and an avid Corner reader, I have to take exception with your characterization of the radio host (Mickelson).
I was very upset by your use of the word “obnoxious” to describe Mickelson. The man has strong views, often expressed brusquely, but he is generally not obnoxious. He is heard daily on the largest radio station in Iowa (1040 AM).
Mickelson is (in his words) “a Christian libertarian.” He also has a strong, literalist, and originalist reading of the Constitution. That reading prompted him to push Romney to deny the court’s power to make law. Mickelson is reaching for a way to constrain judges legislating from the bench—a concern which has also appeared in National Review and First Things.
Also, Mickelson was speaking seriously about Romney’s religion. He was not attacking Romney’s holding of Mormonism. Rather, he was attacking Romney’s apparent inconsistency between his church’s political stand and his own, before he became governor of Massachusetts. In other words, Mickelson was trying to test the “flip-flop” charge against Romney….
Mickelson has since posted a response to the debate online. http://cache.libsyn.com/mickelson/Mickelson_Response.htm
In the culture wars, Jan Mickelson is a National-Review ally. He’s thoughtful, widely-read, and deserved better than your comment indicated.